This Week in Games: July 21, 2012

Nintendo thinks the Wii U is "important," but Michael Pachter does not. Meanwhile, EA announces Battlefield 4, a Taiwanese man dies while playing Diablo III, and always-on connections look set to become the norm.

Welcome to This Week in Games: the games news roundup story for lazy people like me. It's the biggest stories of the week, all summarized in one convenient place. If you don't like to read, and you find the wall of text below to be intimidating, you can watch this week's episode of Quoted for Truth right here, in which news editor Brendan Sinclair, Tom McShea and I argue about a number of these stories, and bring in quotes from comments on each of the individual source stories.

I'm not going to lie, we're a bit grumpy this week.

PLUS! You can also listen to the latest episode of the GameSpot GamePlay Podcast in which we make an hour-long, satirical quiz show out of the week's happenings for the aural pleasure of your earholes. It's embedded all the way at the bottom of this page. Just scroll down and hit play.

OK, strap in...let's go.

Diablo, Fortnite, Always On and Playing Too Much

Diablo III's always-online requirement was a design choice made from the onset of development, and is not going to change, said Blizzard Entertainment CEO Mike Morhaime in a recent message to fans. Morhaime explained that though there are "some downsides" to the online-only approach, it was the right long-term decision for the game. "I fully understand the desire to play Diablo III offline," he said. "However, Diablo III was designed from the beginning to be an online game that can be enjoyed with friends, and the always-online requirement is the best way for us to support that design." Morhaime also said the perception that the always-connected requirement for Diablo III is nothing but a form of protection is false. "While we’ve never said that this requirement guarantees that there will be no cheating or game cracks, it does help us battle those problems (we have not found any fully functional cracks)," he said. "More important to us is that the online requirement is critical for the long-term integrity of the game experience."

On the same subject, Epic Games may mandate gamers have a constant Internet connection to play upcoming PC survival game Fortnite, producer Tanya Jessen told Rock Paper Shotgun. She said firm plans are not yet in place, but noted if Fortnite were to require a persistent connection, it would be done in the interest of fun over a desire to fight piracy. “That’s something we don’t know yet,” she said. “It’s gonna be really dependent on gameplay, and it’s also dependent on platform. So whatever we decide to do there is gonna be more relevant to the most fun experience you can have with your friends [than it is to piracy]. But I can’t nail that down today.”

Meanwhile, in Taiwan a man collapsed and died last weekend after playing Diablo III for 40 straight hours. The Australian Associated Press reported the story, citing the Taiwanese United Daily News as the source of the information. According to the report, the 18-year-old man entered an Internet café in southern Taiwan around noon on Friday, booked a private room, and played almost two days without stopping to eat. On Sunday morning, an employee of the café entered the room to check on the man and found him resting on a table. Shortly after being roused, the man collapsed and was later pronounced dead at a local hospital.

Love is a Battlefield (of Honor)

On Tuesday morning, Electronic Arts confirmed Battlefield 4, and said a beta for the new shooter will commence during fall 2013 for unspecified platforms. Gamers can get access to the trial period by preordering this October's Medal of Honor: Warfighter. EA said more details regarding Battlefield 4 and its beta will be announced at a later date. Speculation concerning Battlefield 4 was sparked last weekend, when EA's Origin webstore posted, and subsequently removed, promotional material for the game.

"Starting work on Battlefield 4 does not mean that we will be abandoning Battlefield 3 or working any less hard to bring you the best expansions we can."

On Wednesday, EA community manager Ian Tornay responded to questions about the announcement on Reddit, saying EA will continue to support Battlefield 3 while it also works on Battlefield 4. "There are several teams at DICE," he said. "Starting work on Battlefield 4 does not mean that we will be abandoning Battlefield 3 or working any less hard to bring you the best expansions we can. DICE and EA are dedicated to continuing our support for Battlefield 3. Just as we've continued to support and maintain Bad Company 2, we intend to continue providing the best Battlefield 3 experience we can well into the future and past the release of End Game and Battlefield 4." Additionally, Tornay confirmed that reserving Medal of Honor Warfighter will not be the only way to score entry to the Battlefield 4 beta. He said there will be "other ways" to get into the trial period, but presently, preordering that game is the only way to guarantee entry. Tornay also responded to criticisms about the timing of the Battlefield 4 announcement, which came just nine months after Battlefield 3 launched last October. "I think it's worth noting that DICE has released a Battlefield game every two years or sooner and Mirror's Edge at least every two years," he said. "I truly believe that we're in one of the best positions to be creating our next titles--Frostbite 2 has matured, we've been gathering fan feedback like crazy, Battlefield 3 continues to expand with features which we can learn from, and we've got more data about how people play than ever."

Despite EA using one big, modern-era shooter franchise to promote another, Electronic Arts' two major shooter franchises have been intentionally designed to attract different gamers, EA Labels president Frank Gibeau asserted in the latest issue of the Game Informer. Gibeau claimed that only half of Medal of Honor gamers also play Battlefield, and this was a result of planning. "We are very careful that Battlefield and Medal of Honor stay differentiated," he said. "There is an inefficiency to having two different brands coming out alternating like that; there is some upside. You don't have the annualized, sequel fatigue. With Medal of Honor we tried to embrace that the game is real. The multiplayer is different than Battlefield. We're trying to use a sequencing strategy to keep it as fresh and different as possible." Gibeau explained further, saying EA did research and found the Medal of Honor community enjoys "more authentic shooters and the story." Additionally, he stated that the real task is "figuring out how to grow both of them together." Clearly, the solution is to bundle the beta for the next popular and successful game with the retail release of the less popular and successful game. Or something. What do you think? Shenanigans?

More Shadowrunning

A second Kickstarter project set in Jordan Weisman's Shadowrun world has now been launched, following the successful $1.8 million backing of Harebrained Schemes' Shadowrun Returns a few months ago. The new project--titled Shadowrun Online--is aiming to raise $500,000 by Tuesday, August 14. It will be a free-to-play browser and tablet MMO with co-operative gameplay and player vs. player faction wars set in the world of Shadowrun, and will be developed by Cliffhanger Productions. "While our MMO is extremely modest by the big-budget standards of today, it costs far more than a development company of our size is able to afford on our own," Cliffhanger said on the project page. "Due to the licence restraints, it is hard to get traditional publishers interested, and we didn't want to give away creative control over the project, or the ability to shape the game together with you, the fans." According to the project's Kickstarter page, the collective actions of players in the game will determine the fate of the online game world with a player-driven plotline. The game will be powered by the Unity 3D game engine, and will be accessible through browsers and tablets (Windows, Mac, Android, iOS), as well as the possibility of Linux support in the future.

Wii U: Important? Or Solution in Search of Problem?

Ever-ready to provide a provocative quote, Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter offered some harsh words about Nintendo's forthcoming Wii U console last week, saying during a Develop Conference presentation that the system "isn't going to work."

"I don’t get it," he said. "I think that essentially this is a solution in search of a problem. I mean, somebody had an idea--'let's make the controller a tablet'--and there aren't many games that are going to take advantage of that." Pachter also claimed that Activision and publishers of other major franchises pressured Nintendo into developing the Wii U Pro Controller, a more traditional gamepad.

"I think that essentially this is a solution in search of a problem. I mean, somebody had an idea--'let's make the controller a tablet'--and there aren't many games that are going to take advantage of that."

"Activision never said anything to me," he explained, "but I know that [for] big games like Call Of Duty they said, 'No, we're not putting it on there if you don't give us a conventional controller'. So they gave in." Pachter had little faith in the original Wii at launch in 2006, calling the system "gimmicky." That system exploded with regards to popularity upon launch, and is currently the top-selling current-generation console. Pachter admitted this was true, but claimed that Nintendo's success will not be repeated. "[The Wii] worked, they got lucky, [but] I don't think they're getting lucky with Wii U," he said. "I don't think they suck. I just think that they really believe that, 'If we're still novel, everything we do will work'. This isn't going to work. Hardcore gamers will buy them; hardcore Nintendo fanboys will buy it. They could put out a piece of cardboard and say that it'll play Mario and they'll buy it."

As you can probably imagine, Nintendo feels quite differently. In an interview with Gamasutra Nintendo president Satoru Iwata said, "One of the reasons we believe this is the time for Nintendo to launch the Wii U is it's going to be important for the world." A bold claim, indeed. Much of the conversation focused on whether being "first" with a new system was an important move, or a disadvantage for the company. To this, Iwata said plainly, "being first in the next generation race is not important at all." He went on to address next generation console competition from Microsoft and Sony. He said Nintendo does not care about attempting to match those consoles' power, and is instead focusing on differentiating the Wii U from these still unannounced systems. "We have not changed our strategy. In other words, we just do not care what kind of 'more beef' console Microsoft and Sony might produce in 2013," he said. "Our focus is on how we can make our new console different than [others]." With regard to how the system will be positioned, he noted that, "The pricing of Wii U is going to be one of the most important elements when it is going to be launched," Iwata said. "The environment is different. Wii U is going to be launching in a different environment than when the Wii was launched. Also, the involvement surrounding [mobile and social] businesses is different than several years ago."

Anyone care to take a stab at guessing what the pricepoint will likely be at launch? Let us know in the comments.

GamePlay Podcast: Biological Warehouse

Check out our new(ish) weekly news-quiz podcast, GameSpot Gameplay - hosted by Kevin VanOrd, and featuring Tom McShea, Carolyn Petit, Chris Watters and myself. Each week we turn the week's events into a loosely-formed quiz show format that you can play along with while listening. If that kind of thing floats your boat. Here's the latest episode, and you can subscribe to the RSS feed too.

Does it seem to anyone else that Nintendo just isn't quite sure what they're doing? They don't care about having more power or their system being "beefier" than other next gen systems. They don't care about being first to market. They didn't care about having a conventional controller. I understand they're trying to differentiate themselves from the competition, but I'm reminded of all these kids I see now with skinny jeans or saggy pants--just because it's different doesn't make it cool. Sometimes different is just plain dumb.

What I want out of the next generation are better graphics, living and breathing gameworlds, more immersion, better AI. Nintendo seems to be headed in the exact opposite direction. They seem to think that if they just reinvent what already works, people will somehow flock to them. But guess what? All those people already did flock to them. They bought a Wii.

Do you think all the casual gamers that bought their Wii and put less than a hundred hours into it are now going to buy the next generation from Nintendo? What about all those grandmas and middle aged women who bought a Wii, hoping it would bring disconnected families together? Do you think they believe that now? What about all those people who bought the Wii for a party game? Do they need another system? Their Wii is collecting dust right next to their copies of Trivial Pursuit, Jenga, and Pictionary. Maybe I just don't understand Nintendo's target audience, but everyone I know who owns a Wii fits into one of these categories and none of them play it anymore. Why would they drop another couple hundred on some other gimmick in this economy?

There, now that I have your attention, I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here.

I can't really fault software companies doing anything they can to prevent piracy. They're just protecting their assets. Do you lock you car doors? Do you lock up your house? Of course you do! Do you cash your paychecks and put it all in a shoebox and leave it on the front porch? No way! You put it in a bank so nobody has access it that hasn't earned the right to access it. Let's say the software industry loses 2% of revenue due to piracy. Would you be okay with losing 2% of your income to thieves, citing "that's just the way it is"?

Furthermore, controlling the game experience IS important. I'll give you an example: Demon/Dark souls. Although it was possible to play the games offline (and amazing games they are) , you would miss out on their incredibly innovative multiplayer component. You wouldn't have phantoms invading your world, blue phantoms to help you, the user-driven messages on the ground, the bloodstains of others to give you an idea of how they died, or the random benign ghosts that appear that remind you that you're not alone in your basement but part of a network of gamers enjoying the same game at the same time. It was thoughtful of the developers to allow the game to be played offline, but if I was the creative genius behind the multiplayer concepts, I would want every single gamer out there to experience it.

All that being said, I really don't like the fact that I have to have an internet connection to play D3. But I just want to remind everyone that it's important to look at both sides. We know our position as gamers, but take the time to understand theirs. It's the very definition of maturity.

EA is stuffing their foot entirely in their mouth. I guess we should expect that obscene attitude from the worst American company of the year... but still. I think they know it's a mixed message and it doesn't bother them at all. They know they already have the reputation of worst company in America, so they might as well own that title. Pad the sales shamelessly. Purposely bait Battlefield fans into prepordering a game that isn't designed for them. Profits are their only motivation and they're pretty happy about that.

The Wii U will be priced far to high for what it is that is for sure. Like Microsoft stated its an Xbox 360. Nintendo needs to wake up because the casuals are playing free games on android devices and apple its just like Pach says this wont work and they will not get lucky again if anything its a really bad move because when I ask people about their Wii's they give me a nasty look and say "wow I sold that thing long ago" or "I don't play them things" or they just pull out a cellphone and show me app games which are awesome at awesome prices. Nintendo should have Xt the tablet controller it is not to late to do this and simply put out a powerful machine at a lost and have 1st party games like Zelda and Metroid make a profit and they will if anyone can do that it is Nintendo.

Better protection against hacks? Because it helps providing a better service? Those are the reasons they claim for the 'always online' crap? The Blizzard guys treat their gamers as they were idiots. That's disrespectful.

Anyone who doesn't see the potential of the Wii U tablet as giving Nintendo a tap into the revenue stream of existing game juggernaut iOS has blinders on. Just like Wii and motion control, the others will introduce similar functionality after Ninty proves its lucrative.

Saying that always online is being implemented for any reason other than piracy is a flat-out lie. For many years gamers have enjoyed games that could be played both off and online without any problems or publisher/dev. interference. And since it's a well known fact that if hackers want to pirate your game there's not a whole lot you can do to stop them. I stay away from always online games because I don't want to experience any of the things gamers complain about like lag or server down time, there's just too many alternatives out there.
As for Nintendo, unless they can hit a price point below $200 I don't think it will sell likw the Wii, especially in the current economic climate. And a low price point seems pretty unlikely becuase that pad/controller has to be an expensive to make, unless it uses really shoddy componants.

Alright, back in the day, I played Everquest and Everquest 2. Those were MMO games, and I completely understand the always online connection. Heck, Online is in the genre name. This crap about constant connection for Diablo 3 though, that's total crap. I refused to buy it and I'll refuse to buy any game that requires an online connection for a single player experience. Games with no single player at all I can easily understand and support, but otherwise forget it. If this unfortunate trend becomes the norm, I'll simply stop playing video games and go fishing full time. Saves on electricity plus I get to kill aquatic lifeforms for food. Win/Win.

"but noted if Fortnite were to require a persistent connection, it would be done in the interest of fun over a desire to fight piracy." Flat out LYING. Why do we listen to this garbage? Who on earth ACTUALLY believe that?

Whats funny about the WII U is the fact that alot of people will buy it to allow them to play Nintendo Games in HD. However if you have a decent PC and Gamecube emulator which upconverts the games into HD you can already be enjoying Nintendo games in HD. btw it looks amazing.

Its really sad to see the always online model thriving it's definetly a loss to gamers. It almost makes me want to sue the publisher if i lose internet and am now unable to play a game that i paid $60 for. As far as piracy goes, if hackers really want a game they will always find a way, Instead of punishing the loyal customers that dish out 60 dollars that probebly should be going elsewhere they should be stepping up their efforts to combat online piracy websites that distribute the content.

Well, I only buy Nintendo games because of their exclusive games, because i played many Nintendo exclusives in my childhood and I loved it. Since NES to 64. After those i always invested on Nintendo (of course not only on nintendo, i had PS1, 2 and now 3), then i bought GC that wasn't that good but anyway i still play it sometimes. And then came Wii, that was like "wow, the controller is amazing, TP is awesome!". And then come lots of games, but the only games i actually bought were Nintendo exclusives like MK, SMG, TP, Skyward Sword, Metroid 3, Smash bros, etc. But, after finishing those games, you just don't play it anymore, maybe those new nintendo consoles doesnt have a lot of epic games like before, maybe it's because they are always the same or maybe because (and that's my opinion why Wii wasn't that good) those epic games are not that good anymore. I mean, TP was epic for me, liek SMG too and other exclusives like xenobalde, smash bros, but games that you would play many times are not that good anymore. Like Mario Kart Wii, i mean i loved it, but it wasn't like Double Dash and 64, first because i loved the tracks in 64 and the idea of 2 in one car and teh specials on Double Dash, maybe they should keep give you the option to choose from using a car with 1 or 2 characters in a car or picked better classic tracks idk, and other disapointment for me was Mario Party, that, for me, after the 3rd game, no other was good enough, in 64 i still play MP 2 and 3, they were awesome, in GC they were just ok, but i still fin dmyself sometimes playing it, but in Wii, they are trash, i hated that they changed the formula from past games and the mini games quality are not that good. So, for me Nintendo should do for me what they did best, real good multiplayer games, because they keep doing a great job with Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc, but with Mario Party, Mario Kart and Pokémon (for consoles) were not good at all and, to Wii U shut up the critics (and me) they should launch another IP, so epic like Zelda, Mario, Pikmin, Metroid, Star Fox, etc. But yeah, i keep buying it because of the exclusives, and of course that, in the end, no matter how long i will take, I will buy the Wii U, but no because of the gamepad, not because of the power, but because of Nintendo's exclusives and because i still believe that the Big N will make great multiplayer games like before.

The fact that DRM is becoming the norm shows that gamers are too afraid to be entitled. While there are limits (complaining about an art style *cough*Zelda*cough* comes to mind), you need to show these companies that DRM is not the solution to piracy and not buy (or just pirate) their games to show that you have the right to not be the bitch of these big assholes. Big gaming journalists also have a part in this; whenever a game has DRM, point it out as a detrimental flaw journalists. DRM naturally doesn't work; the servers crash if they move, you lose any unsaved progress if you disconnect even slightly, and it doesn't stop piracy. Gamers, show that you can actually do something; you showed Fox that Mass Effect isn't "hardcore pornography", you had Mass Effect 3's ending changed to fill in the plot holes, & Dark Souls is coming to the PC. So do it here, we have rights to be entitled. I'm typing this for you guys.

In my opinion, the Wii U needs to be more expensive in order for their ingenuity and innovation to work. Otherwise we are left with a system with infinite possibilities with no way of making them happen. (Lack of decent online marketplace/multiplayer + lack of next generation hardware specs + inevitable lack of third party support in comparison to PC, PS4, and Xbox.)

The Always Online requirement of games is retarded for several reasons. 1) people without internet can never enjoy the game. 2) Internet outages are common at this point in time, ergo making the game hit or miss on playablity (if I can't play a game I payed money for at the times I desire then that's bullshit.) 3) Server updates, outages, and maintenance all detract from time I could be playing the game. This and the fact the developer can simply shut down server support and render a game useless at any point is unacceptable.

Listen people, Nintendo sucks because they cant come up with new characters and series. The world of nintendo is the loneliest place ever! All they got is a money hungry stereotype, a cross dresser, a fat blob who copys people(hahaha Nintendo) and a monkey (omg nintendo, dont shake the world with your vast imagination) They are like The simpsons, dont know when to quit! Nintendo is LAME!!!! nothing mario does is interesting to me because, hes played out!

I think Nintendo's problem is that a lot (I'd actually say most) of the people who bought the Wii had the same sequence of events

Wow - Play a lot

Wow - Play with friends over

Meh - Occasionally play

Meh - It never gets turned on

That was my experience and I eventually sold mine just to get rid of it. I don't think it was bad system but I do think that it was gimmicky with few games (not produced by Nintendo) of value. I am going to pass on Wii U.

I don't think it will be a disaster, but I do believe it is going to be in a distinctly third place kinda niche

@93ChevyNut If you're a realtor selling houses, do you sell houses with no doors and only second floor windows? Sure it'll be a huge pain to anyone who buys it legitimately and wants to live there, but no one's going to be burglarizing your houses any time soon.

If it's a game like Diablo, sure I get it. If it's an MMO, well obviously you need it. But what if it's a game that has both single player and multiplayer? Should Mass Effect 3 require you to be online to play it because it has multiplayer? What about Skyrim? It doesn't even have multiplayer, just a DLC store as online connection.

I get why they're doing it, and it makes sense for some games, but not everyone has internet, and of those who do, not everyone has reliable internet. Grocery stores deal with major inventory theft too, but they don't require you to have someone looking over the shoulder of every prospective customer that comes in the store from the time they enter until the time they leave. Theft and Piracy are wrong and they suck, but everyone who intends to actually sell things in bulk just has to deal with them the best they can without screwing over people who buy their stuff legitimately in the process.

@93ChevyNut "Do you lock you car doors? Do you lock up your house? Of course you do! Do you cash your paychecks and put it all in a shoebox and leave it on the front porch? No way!"

Locking your car doors, house, and putting your money in the bank all have proven to keep you safer. It keeps your property safer. Not just theoretically but statically, in practice, these things work. On the other hand, there's no evidence to show that always online DRM has ever stopped or curbed the piracy of any game. This is just fact.

@jeffkaos I would argue that implementing always online specifically for piracy is a flat-out lie. Name one game where a required internet connection prevented it from being pirated. You can't. There is no evidence to support that always online DRM has ever prevented or even curbed piracy. It's designed to watch the activity of paying customers

@cephas90 i wonder if there's a small but tremendously wealthy group of gamers out there who actually do believe all this nonsense and power the movement towards stuff like this (and preorder bonuses, day 1 DLC, etc). The AAA gaming industry has been progressively alienating me with nonsense like this for the past 5-7 years, which is too long to be a fluke.

@Matcam89 You make a good point. However the majority of people don't use illegal emulators. This is the reason that gaming is in danger. Emulators a means of not paying a company. Why create games that are going to get stolen.

@kingcamel Age of Empires trilogy + Expansions, Microsoft Flight Simulator series, Asheron's Call 1 & 2, Freelancer, Starlancer, Close Combat, Allegiance, Dungeon Siege II (the only one I liked), Rise of Nations + Thrones and Patriots, Rise of Legends, Age of Mythology + The Titans, & Metal Gear Solid (the PC port is published by Microsoft) are all amazing games under the Microsoft banner and, in my opinion, are better than almost all of Nintendo's games. Also, Microsoft doesn't make Halo, Bungie & (more recently) 343 Studios do.

@kingcamel They're indie and arcade market can be considered an equivalent to good first party games. It's like Apple getting all the good apps before Android.Still, I agree that Xbox needs better exclusives.

@alexh111 I agree that it lost my attention over time. It had no third party support, and that's what kept it from being a better system in my eyes. I still greatly enjoyed the Nintendo franchise games on it, but it didn't have the 3rd party support it needed.

I still am a big Nintendo fan, and will be getting the Wii U. I would only consider skipping out on it if I didn't think it would get more third party support than the Wii. However, I think the more traditional controller will open it up to many third party ports. They will probably use the touch screen only for menus and small features, which is perfectly fine for me. I think only Nintendo will really use the second screen to its best ability, but it will still make other games more accessible.

@Serious There is another point you are missing however. Those systems and games are now old school and other than emulators and roms, that's about the only way you are going to play...well, just about. You aren't going to find every single title in the wii store, and there are maybe even some old atari games that are out of date and hard to find. What this has done, since they are no longer on the market, is make it a little bit easier and accessible. Without it, you would have to own a system that you would be hardpressed to find and you would have to own the games, in which would be hard pressed to find. So to cherish the past, I think emulators and such work just fine. Purchase new games to keep the publishers and systems alive and re-live the past using online emulation and the like. Just my .02

I see no harm in emulators if you own the copy of a game. I have lots of old games sitting in boxes. Emulators are an easier way to enjoy them and also play them in HD. Yes you can ples NES in HD and it looks great. Besides emulators arent for current gen systems.

@I_are_Cake @kingcamel They're not talking about games that Microsoft makes, they're talking about games that are exclusive to Microsofts console. Mass Effect used to be an exclusive liscense but I agree with people when they say Xbox needs more and better AAA exclusives. So far Sony has them beat on that front.

@KeeseKiller7 @alexh111 I agree about a lack of third party support. I came to the Wii party late but my wife and I enjoy playing it together. My biggest problem is there's a huge glut of shovel-ware cluttering the sWii shelves at game stores. All I see are tons of party games with loud packaging and a handfull of ports for more well known titles that I would rather just play on a more powerfull console.